Conscious Choice: The Air Up There

Archive | News of the Earth (March 1997)

The Air Up There

by Ben Lilliston

The latest fight over clean air regulations is setting up an all-too-familiar scenario: in one corner, powerful business interests blindly pursuing their bottom line attempt to run roughshod over the environment and human health. In the other corner, citizens struggle to utilize ever-wavering government institutions to hold these corporate interests in check.

Despite complying with national clean air standards, the Metropolitan Chicago area is third highest in estimated premature deaths in the U.S. due to particulate air pollution. Nearly 5,000 Illinois residents die prematurely every year because of particulate matter. And according to the American Lung Association (ALA), more than 140,000 children in the Chicago area suffer from asthma.

"The science is telling us that many Chicagoans are getting sick or dying at air pollution levels which are in compliance with current clean air standards," says Ron Burke, Director of Environmental Health at the ALA of Metropolitan Chicago.

Who are the primary culprits of dirty air? The steel industry in the Chicago area accounts for more than half of all particulate pollution generated in the state. The top five particulate polluters are U.S. Steel, Amoco Oil Company, Acme Steel, Bethlehem Steel, and Cargill, Inc. These five polluters are responsible for 68 percent of emissions in Chicago, according to a recent report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

Late last year, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that too many other cities share Chicago’s health problems associated with dirty air. After reviewing more than 240 peer-reviewed scientific studies, the agency issued new rules to strengthen the federal Clean Air Act through new air quality standards for particulate matter (soot) and ground-level ozone (smog). Compliance for reaching the new standards will likely not be required until well into the next century.

While the EPA’s proposed rules have been criticized by some environmental groups for not going far enough, most believe they are a constructive first step. Not surprisingly, a coalition of oil, power utility, and steel manufacturers are using all kinds of "cataclysmic" rhetoric in regards to the new standards. Despite the strong scientific consensus on the risks of dirty air, they have chosen to wage a multi-million dollar campaign to weaken the EPA’s proposed standards. Through the funding of advertisements, phony grass-roots organizations, and national front groups, industry has made no bones about their intentions to squash these standards by any means necessary.

On January 14 and 15, Chicago was one of four cities around the country to hold public hearings on the EPA’s proposed standards. Testifying at the two-day hearings were representatives from a plethora of regional environmental and public health organizations, as well as Chicago-area residents who have been victimized by air pollution.

Kyle Damitz, an eight-year-old who lives in northwest Chicago, told the EPA committee that on hot summer days when the ozone is high, he must stay inside in front of the air conditioner, or risk a trip to the hospital. "I can’t play outside. Why would we want to pollute the air?" asked Kyle.

On the first day of hearings, representatives from the Air Quality Standards Coalition (AQSC), the Citizens for a Sound Economy, and Partnership for Environmental Progress held their own news conference. Who are these seemingly sensible-sounding organizations? They are what the environmental community calls corporate front groups—organizations with innocuous sounding names which represent business interests.

The national leader against the new EPA standards is the AQSC, which was formed by the National Association of Manufacturers, and is housed in their offices in Washington, D.C. This 500 member coalition includes the American Petroleum Institute, the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the Edison Electric Institute, the National Mining Association, and the American Forest and Paper Association.

Industry members of AQSC were asked to ante up at a cost of $100,000 each, according to published reports. Burson Marstellar—one of the world’s largest public relations firms and frequent advocate of anti-environmentalism—has been hired to lead the lobbying effort to kill reform on capital hill, according to the Environmental Working Group.

To augment AQSC’s inside-the-beltway power, is Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), which brags about its successful grass-roots efforts around the country to "counter the rhetoric of the environmental community." Although CSE claims to have a 250,000 national membership, its individual members account for less than a fourth of their income. The group’s budget has exploded in recent years, a 72 percent jump from 1994 to 1995, due to a large influx of corporate contributions from such companies as Amoco, General Electric, Georgia Pacific, Mobil, R.J. Reynolds, Dow Chemical, Coors, Chevron, and Union Carbide. Their largest donor is the right wing David H. Koch Charitable Foundation.

While CSE boasts of its grass-roots prowess, most of their actions simply involve the purchase of advertisements in local markets around the country.

"They either don’t have that many members, or they are unable to mobilize them," says Dan Barry, director of the Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research (CLEAR), which studies anti-environmental groups.

Not to be left out, the Illinois business community decided to form their own front group called the Partnership for Environmental Progress (PEP), led by chairman David Sykuta—who also happens to be the executive director of the Illinois Petroleum Council. Under the direction of the public relations firm Serafin & Associates, PEP is following the familiar industry strategy of wild, exaggerated scare tactics intended to distort the public debate. PEP has called the new EPA standards so harsh they will force the eradication of snowblowers and backyard barbecues.

Ron Burke finds PEP’s name "particularly insidious" because of its similarity to a coalition he helped form called "Partners for Clean Air." "I’m suspicious that they chose their name because it sounds closely like ours," says Burke.

The industry public relations effort was particularly aggressive in Chicago during the EPA hearings, where CSE ran radio ads on Chicago’s WLS and WBBM. The ads dismissed air pollution as a cause for increased asthma rates: "Kids with asthma? Most of it’s caused by bad indoor air. You know, dust mites, stuff like that." The ads went on to claim that the new regulations "would drive up the price of cars, force people into car pools, and maybe even end up banning things like barbecue grills and lawn mowers."

The Illinois Sierra Club and the ALA challenged the ads, charging that they were filled with factual inaccuracies. WBBM pulled the ads for review, but CSE decided to pull the ads anyway.

"They’re trying to take people’s attention off the public health crisis that is going on," says Jack Darin, Illinois Field Representative of the Sierra Club, which ran their own advertisements on several Chicago-area radio stations.

The industry efforts to kill the new standards are following a three-prong attack. First, challenge the current body of research on the hazards of clean air and call it "junk science." Second, dramatically overstate the costs of the new regulations to business. Third, try to mobilize public opposition by distorting who the proposed standards will affect the most.

"They are trying an age-old industry P.R. tactic—you are responsible for pollution," Barry said. "It’s not corporations and industry that are the major problem, it is you, the individual, who is responsible. They are trying to insert just enough doubt into the mind of the public. That’s because they really don’t have a political constituency to back them up."

The American Petroleum Council estimates the new standards could cost as much as $14.1 billion a year, just in Chicago alone. But according to the EPA’s economic analysis, it will cost industry approximately $6.5 billion to $8.5 billion. The benefits of the small-particle reduction will save an estimated $51 billion to $112 billion annually in reduced medical costs, and reduce by nearly $1 billion the losses of agricultural crops from damage caused by ozone.

Current EPA data indicate that from 1970-1990, we received $45 in public health and environmental benefits for every dollar spent to comply with clean air regulations.

The scientific evidence of public harm resulting from the current clean air standards is overwhelming. The EPA based its new standards on particulate matter after evaluating over 86 peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrating a clear relationship between particulate pollution and mortality rates. In determining the ozone standard, the agency reviewed another 185 ozone-related studies on human health—all of which showed harmful effects from ozone at the current standard.

Particulate matter is the generic name for a broad class of toxic air pollution that can include various metals such as lead, copper, cadmium sulfate and nitrate particles, and particle-forming organic compounds such as PCBs and aromatic compounds. These small particles are dangerous because they can easily penetrate into the deepest regions of the lungs.

Ozone, or smog, is a chemical haze of pollutants from car exhausts and smoke-stack emissions that shroud many cities on hot summer days. The scientific research indicates that there are more than 1.5 million incidents a year of significant respiratory problems, including loss of lung capacity and exacerbation of both childhood and adult asthma due to ozone.

The EPA claims that the new standards would cut premature deaths linked with particulate air pollution by 50 percent, or approximately 20,000 deaths; reduce asthma episodes by more than a quarter million cases each year among other respiratory ailments; and cut haze and visibility problems by as much as 77 percent in some areas, including national parks.

The EPA also estimates that 70 percent of the areas currently meeting existing clean air requirements would be able to achieve the new, tougher standards with existing anti-pollution technologies.

By most of the environmental community, the EPA is considered overly conservative in its approach to regulation. The EPA only took action on clean air after a federal court ordered it to do so. The American Lung Association filed suit against the agency for not fulfilling its requirements under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The EPA is required to review the standards every five years. The EPA chose to announce the rule changes quietly the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.

The industry coalitions constructed to kill the new clean air rules are formidable. They are heavily-funded and have demonstrated a determination to say and do anything to win. Only a concerted citizen effort will provide the EPA with the backing it needs to stand up to the intense pressure from industry.

The ALA of Metropolitan Chicago, Illinois Sierra Club, and the Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest are leading the move in Illinois to support the EPA’s new standards. Contact them for more information.

The EPA is accepting public comments on the new Clean Air rules until March 12. They will make a final determination on the rules on July 19. To tell the EPA you support their stronger rules, call 1-888-TellEPA, email them at general.comments@epamail.epa.gov, or write: Carol Browner, Administrator EPA, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460. Attn.: EPA Dockets A-95-54, A-95-58, A-96-51, and A-95-38.

Local environmental groups are also setting up meetings with members of the Illinois Congressional delegation to discuss the new standards. Congress does have the power to overrule new EPA rules, and many Republican members have suggested they will do just that. After March 12, you can express your support for the new standards by contacting your Congressman. Please do.

National
& A coalition of environmental and taxpayer groups released their 1997 "Green Scissors Report" in February, highlighting 57 "pork barrel" programs with potential taxpayer savings of $36 billion. A $119 million boondoggle water project in Mississippi and a $150 million U.S. Forest Service slush fund are among the latest cases of corporate welfare.

To get a copy of the report, call Friends of the Earth, 202-783-7400, ext. 239, or check it out on their web site.

International
& Human Rights Watch recently released their seventh survey of global human rights, and the findings confirm the troubling influence of multinational corporations. The report found that governments repeatedly placed business profits before human rights.

The authors concluded: "For a number of years, an important tool in promoting human rights has been the linkage of international assistance to the recipient’s human rights record. With a rapidly expanding global economy, however, trade and investment, in many cases, have overtaken in importance bilateral or even multilateral assistance. But many industrialized countries are reluctant to use this new form of economic leverage for human rights purposes as they fear a loss of investment opportunities as a result. While quite willing to exert economic pressure on poor states like Burundi, Cuba, Libya, or Sudan, they remain silent on abuses by economically attractive countries like China, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia."

As I assume the mantle of environmental watchdog for this column I want to extend a special thanks to Mark Long, who set the standard for "News of the Earth" in the 20 columns he penned these past three years.

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: